Change the War Crimes Act, I Think Not

The administration has insisted that they were not breaking the law or ignoring international standards in its treatment of detainees, however, a draft revision of the War Crimes Act may shed light into their actual desire to change a law in order to protect against prosecution for lawbreaking that has already occurred.Today’s Washington Post reports on the administration’s proposed amendments to the War Crimes Act, which specify the categories of illegal activities that are absolutely banned while leaving flexibility so great that CIA officials and others operating under orders of the President or a political appointee immunity from prosecution as well as giving the appointee immunity from prosecution. However, the military officials, who are immune under the War Crimes Act, would be prosecutable for the Conduct under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Our military personnel can be charged with an offense under the general article if their offense is not covered by a specified article.

This attempt by the administration to propose very narrow definitions of war crimes comes on the heels of a request for Congress to define war crimes reproted in the New York Times. The administration did not give them a fair chance to do their work. This proposal will preoccupy and cotrol debate because it is the first and gives staunch supports of the President like John Cornyn and Jeff Sessions suggestions to work with in handling the most difficult issue of our time.

According to my interpretations of the reports these amendments would effectively make the McCain provisions of the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) ineffectual. The McCain provision was approved by the Senate 90-9 and also by an overwhelming house majority.


The language of the McCain provision expressly forbids “cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment as well as outrages upon personal dignity.? We have been having this battle since the legislature used their Article I authority to regulate conduct of the War on terror ad place our values at the fore of the fight. The first move by the president was the signing statement to last years defense bill saying that he would follow sections of the DTA when he felt they did not conflict with his claimed Article II authority as Commander in Chief. Sen. Arlen Specter has proposed a bill to allow Congress to have standing in the courts when there is a dispute with a presidential signing statement.

With this history, progression of events, and reports of things that have occurred at Abu Ghraib and Guatanamo Bay I am vehemently opposed to the amendments to the War Crimes Act. Also, with the administration wanting to allow coerced testimony and hearsay evidence in military commissions I believe that their needs to broad prosecution authority for wrongdoing. I believe that these amendments not only create a conflict with our values, but also between laws.